Case No. HT-08-331

43.Mr Lee submits that, on the basis that there is a contract in writing, the Scheme would apply and paragraphs 8(1) and 8(2) of Part I provides as follows:“8(1) The adjudicator may, with the consent of all the parties to those disputes, adjudicate at the same time on more than one dispute under the same contract.8(2) The adjudicator may, with the consent of all the parties to those disputes, adjudicate at the same time on related disputes under different contracts, whether or not one or more of those parties is a party to those disputes.” 44.As a result, Mr Lee submits that the adjudicator can only deal with a dispute under the same contract and not related disputes under different contracts. He refers in particular to evidence both in Mr Dauncey's witness statement, at paragraphs 8 to 11, and in Mr Ghataura's second witness statement at paragraphs 9 to 10. I accept that under the Scheme which applies to the construction contract in this case, PTB can only refer a dispute under that construction contract to adjudication. 45.However, the evidence of Mr Dauncey and Mr Ghataura does not, in my judgment, establish that the works in relation to the various properties were not in fact carried out as part of the construction contract evidenced in writing by the Meeting Notes and the other documents. First, it is evident that instructions were given by ROK to PTB to carry out works in relation to a number of main contracts by which ROK was asked to perform the work. Secondly, the arrangements made were that the work was to be administered under the terms of the construction contract evidenced by the Meeting Notes. No further independent subcontracts were formed at that stage, but ROK continued to instruct work which both parties treated as and dealt with under the one construction contract. This is also consistent with the late evidence from Mr White, who was formerly employed by ROK, but produced a witness statement on behalf of PTB. 46.In those circumstances, the dispute as to how much PTB had to be paid for the work carried out under the construction contract evidenced by the Meeting Notes and the other documents was, I consider, one dispute under one subcontract. In my judgment, there was, therefore, no ground for asserting that the adjudication fell foul of the provisions of paragraphs 8(1) or 8(2) of Part I of the Scheme in the manner set out in